Scared of the sunshine

April 05, 2009

Today the Tribune offers the first of a series of recommendations to clean up the corruption and secrecy that has become pervasive in Illinois government and politics.

Many of these steps will require action by Illinois lawmakers -- the very people who have grown comfortable with the status quo. None of this will be accomplished unless Illinois citizens demand it. We urge you to be heard -- at the village boards and city halls, at the halls of the legislature, in the governor's office. Encourage your neighbors to do the same.

Turning this agenda into strong laws -- not mere eyewash -- would be a good beginning toward lasting change.

The series opens with the need to unravel government secrecy.

- - -

Want to know what your government is doing for you? Or to you? Good luck.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act steps off smartly, declaring that "all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them. ..."

From there, though, the law stumbles through a thicket of exceptions, exemptions and obstacles that render its opening lines largely moot.

It's a notoriously weak law, it's poorly enforced, and we all know why. Secrecy protects the people in power.

In their role as public watchdogs, Tribune reporters encounter daily stonewalling from officials who don't want their actions scrutinized by the public. Ordinary citizens don't fare any better.

In 2006, the Better Government Association had a taxpayer make a simple records request of 408 local governments in Illinois. Only 32 percent of them complied. A whopping 39 percent didn't even bother to respond.

The citizen "encountered blatant resistance, numerous delays and arbitrary obstructions that violate both the letter and the spirit of the Illinois FOIA," the BGA's report says. Some public bodies tried to levy prohibitive copying fees or to charge for staff time to produce the records, clear violations of the law. Others demanded to know why he wanted the information.

"Most striking was the level of hostility John Q. Public encountered despite requesting documents that are clearly available under FOIA," the report says.

Yes, hostility. When you want information from your government, you can expect not just indifference. You can expect hostility.

Embarrassed by the abuses of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who instructed state agencies to deny public records requests as a matter of routine, state lawmakers have pledged to put some teeth in the law.

Don't hold your breath.

The legislature is considering a package of tepid reforms that rely largely on the good faith of those recalcitrant public officials. If your village council doesn't want to share its records with you, it still would find plenty of cover in the proposed bill, with its gaping loopholes and wrist-slap penalties.

Fixing the FOI law will require much, much more than what the legislature is now contemplating.

It will require a wholesale rewrite, not a handful of tweaks.

This doesn't have to be complicated: The new law should begin with the presumption that public records are open to public inspection.

The burden should be on the government to prove otherwise, based on a very few, very specific exceptions. The law should establish a reasonable and efficient process for fulfilling public records requests and set meaningful penalties for those who don't comply.

The current law is loaded with excuses and stalling mechanisms that are exploited every day by officials who don't want taxpayers looking over their shoulders. And it provides citizens with little recourse if their requests are arbitrarily denied.

Among the problems:

*A record is exempt from disclosure if releasing it would constitute "a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Sounds reasonable, except that catch-all often is used to withhold any record that contains Social Security numbers. The law specifically excludes personnel files of government employees.

While the House bill would eliminate the personnel file ruse, a better approach to ensuring privacy would be to spell out types of information that are protected -- medical histories and Social Security numbers, for example -- instead of exempting entire records that contain otherwise public information. Make it clear: the Social Security number will be redacted and the rest of the file will be released.

*"Under investigation" is a widely abused exemption, used to withhold the barest details of alleged misconduct by government officials or employees. The law should provide language that ensures this exemption is narrowly interpreted.